|
Are we to make True Happiness one and the same thing with
Welfare or Prosperity and therefore within the reach of the other
living beings as well as ourselves?
There is certainly no reason to deny well-being to any of them as
long as their lot allows them to flourish unhindered after their
kind.
Whether we make Welfare consist in pleasant conditions of life,
or in the accomplishment of some appropriate task, by either
account it may fall to them as to us. For certainly they may at
once be pleasantly placed and engaged about some function that
lies in their nature: take for an instance such living beings as
have the gift of music; finding themselves well-off in other
ways, they sing, too, as their nature is, and so their day is
pleasant to them.
And if, even, we set Happiness in some ultimate Term pursued by
inborn tendency, then on this head, too, we must allow it to
animals from the moment of their attaining this Ultimate: the
nature in them comes to a halt, having fulfilled its vital course
from a beginning to an end.
It may be a distasteful notion, this bringing-down of happiness
so low as to the animal world- making it over, as then we must,
even to the vilest of them and not withholding it even from the
plants, living they too and having a life unfolding to a Term.
But, to begin with, it is surely unsound to deny that good of
life to animals only because they do not appear to man to be of
great account. And as for plants, we need not necessarily allow
to them what we accord to the other forms of life, since they
have no feeling. It is true people might be found to declare
prosperity possible to the very plants: they have life, and life
may bring good or evil; the plants may thrive or wither, bear or
be barren.
No: if Pleasure be the Term, if here be the good of life, it is
impossible to deny the good of life to any order of living
things; if the Term be inner-peace, equally impossible;
impossible, too, if the good of life be to live in accordance
with the purpose of nature.
|
|